The ongoing negotiations between Russia and the United States aimed at ending the war in Ukraine are built on a faulty foundation—one that deliberately misrepresents the true nature of the conflict. The dominant narrative claims that the war is between Russia and Ukraine, but in reality, it is a proxy war between Russia and the United States, with Ukraine serving as the battleground. This misrepresentation skews the global perception of the war, distorts diplomatic efforts, and prolongs the suffering of those caught in the crossfire.

The Roots of the Conflict: A Manufactured Crisis

To fully understand the origins of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, one must look beyond the immediate circumstances of February 2022, when Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered what was termed a “special military operation.” The roots of this war stretch back much further, with a pivotal moment occurring in 2014. That year marked the U.S.-sponsored Maidan Revolution, an event that led to the ousting of Ukraine’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. This dramatic shift in Ukraine’s political landscape was not a spontaneous uprising for democracy, as often portrayed in Western narratives, but rather a strategically engineered coup designed to serve Washington’s broader geopolitical objectives against Russia.

The Maidan uprising, celebrated in Western media as a pro-democracy movement, was in fact heavily shaped by foreign influence.

The United States played a central role in orchestrating this transition, pouring significant financial and political resources into Ukraine’s opposition movements.

Victoria Nuland, who was then the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, openly admitted that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in what was described as “democracy promotion” in Ukraine. This investment was not merely for abstract democratic ideals but was a calculated effort to redirect Ukraine away from Russia’s sphere of influence and integrate it into the Western bloc.

Yanukovych’s government had been negotiating a potential economic agreement with the European Union, but when he ultimately opted to maintain closer economic ties with Russia instead, the U.S. and its allies seized the moment to accelerate their agenda. The subsequent unrest, which culminated in his removal, was actively supported by Western actors who saw an opportunity to reshape Ukraine’s political trajectory. Following Yanukovych’s departure, Ukraine underwent a rapid transformation, aligning itself increasingly with NATO interests and adopting a staunchly anti-Russian stance, a development that directly contributed to the geopolitical tensions that later erupted into full-scale conflict.

In the wake of the Maidan events, the Minsk Agreements were brokered in an attempt to address the escalating tensions in Eastern Ukraine. These agreements, mediated by Germany and France, were intended to provide a diplomatic solution to the conflict by granting the Donetsk and Luhansk regions a degree of autonomy while keeping Ukraine territorially intact. However, despite being endorsed on paper, these agreements were never implemented in good faith. Rather than fostering peace, the United States and its European allies ensured that the accords remained unenforced, thereby sustaining instability in the region. By refusing to push for the necessary political accommodations within Ukraine, the Western powers effectively weaponized the conflict as a means to provoke and contain Russia.

The broader strategic goal of the U.S. in this manufactured crisis was clear: to weaken Russia’s regional influence and entangle Moscow in a prolonged conflict. By systematically undermining any attempts at peaceful resolution, the West succeeded in turning Ukraine into a battleground for its own geopolitical ambitions. The refusal to genuinely implement the Minsk Agreements, the continuous supply of military aid to Ukraine, and the ongoing push for NATO expansion all demonstrate how Washington has leveraged the situation to its advantage, ensuring that Ukraine remains a frontline state in the broader power struggle against Russia.

In essence, the war in Ukraine did not begin in 2022, nor was it an unprovoked act of aggression from Moscow. Instead, it was the result of years of calculated political maneuvering, where Ukraine was transformed into a pawn in a much larger game of global power politics. The U.S. and its allies have not only instigated this crisis but have also actively obstructed any meaningful resolution, prioritizing their strategic objectives over the stability and well-being of the Ukrainian people.

 The Reality of the Negotiations: A Diplomatic Charade

The ongoing negotiations regarding the war in Ukraine present an illusion of diplomacy rather than an honest effort to resolve the conflict. At their core, these talks operate under a false premise—that Ukraine is an independent actor capable of making sovereign decisions about war and peace. In reality, Ukraine’s war effort is entirely dependent on Western, particularly U.S., military and financial support. Without the steady flow of weapons, intelligence, and logistical assistance from NATO countries, Ukraine would be unable to sustain its fight against Russia.

Since the start of the conflict, Ukraine has received tens of billions of dollars in aid from the United States and its allies. This includes advanced weaponry, real-time battlefield intelligence, and direct financial support to keep its government functioning. These resources have allowed Ukraine to continue the war, but they also ensure that the conflict persists on terms dictated by Washington rather than Kyiv. In effect, the United States is the true party directing Ukraine’s military strategy, making any negotiations between Russia and Ukraine largely performative. The war does not continue because Ukraine alone chooses to fight—it continues because Washington has decided that it must.

Given this reality, the only meaningful negotiation that should occur is not between Russia and Ukraine, but between Russia and the United States. The two principal powers involved—the Kremlin and Washington—are the real decision-makers in this war. However, such negotiations should not focus on mutual compromise, as often assumed in diplomatic circles, but on an acknowledgment of geopolitical reality. Washington must come to terms with the fact that it has not achieved its objectives in Ukraine and, in a broader sense, has lost the war.

This admission is not just a matter of military assessment but of geopolitical consequence. Accepting defeat in Ukraine would be a significant setback for U.S. foreign policy, undermining Washington’s credibility among allies and adversaries alike. It would challenge the long-standing perception of American global dominance, calling into question the effectiveness of U.S. interventionism. For policymakers in Washington, this is an unacceptable outcome—one that they will resist at all costs, even if it means prolonging the war indefinitely.

Thus, the negotiations taking place today are little more than a diplomatic charade. Until the true power brokers—the United States and Russia—engage in an honest reckoning of the war’s outcome, peace will remain elusive, and the suffering will continue.

Russia’s Strategic Position: Unwavering and Strengthened

From a military and strategic perspective, Russia has already secured substantial victories in the ongoing conflict. Despite the unprecedented levels of Western military aid to Ukraine, the imposition of sweeping economic sanctions, and sustained diplomatic pressure, Russia remains resolute. The attritional nature of the war has gradually tilted in Moscow’s favor, as Ukraine’s military capabilities continue to deteriorate while Russia’s capacity to sustain its war effort remains largely intact.

The much-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive, which Western leaders touted as a potential turning point, has instead exposed the fundamental weaknesses of Kyiv’s position. The offensive failed to achieve its strategic objectives, suffering from logistical shortcomings, entrenched Russian defenses, and the sheer scale of battlefield attrition. With Ukrainian forces struggling to replenish manpower and munitions, and with Western arms shipments slowing, the broader trajectory of the war appears increasingly unfavorable for Kyiv. This outcome underscores a harsh reality for Washington: its strategy of using Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia has faltered.

Washington initially envisioned that a combination of economic warfare and military attrition would degrade Russia’s ability to sustain its war effort, leading to internal instability and, potentially, political upheaval in Moscow. However, these expectations have not materialized. Instead of crippling Russia’s economy, Western sanctions have forced Moscow to reorient its economic strategy, strengthening its trade and diplomatic ties with key non-Western powers, including China, India, Iran, and several nations in the Global South. These new partnerships have mitigated much of the damage caused by Western economic measures, allowing Russia to maintain a level of economic stability that many Western analysts had underestimated.

Meanwhile, the prolonged nature of the war has inflicted significant costs on the West itself. European nations, particularly those heavily reliant on Russian energy, have faced severe economic disruptions, including soaring inflation and energy shortages. Additionally, the war has exposed the limitations of NATO’s strategic depth—Western military stockpiles have been significantly depleted, as the rapid transfer of arms to Ukraine has outpaced their replenishment rates. This has raised questions about NATO’s overall preparedness for a sustained conflict, particularly if tensions were to escalate in other regions.

In stark contrast, Ukraine is facing an existential crisis. The war has devastated the country’s economy, pushing it to the brink of financial collapse. Critical infrastructure—including power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation networks—has been systematically targeted, further crippling Ukraine’s economic viability. The demographic situation is equally dire: battlefield losses, mass displacement, and an exodus of refugees have exacerbated a pre-existing population decline, raising concerns about the country’s long-term viability even beyond the war.

At the same time, Western enthusiasm for sustaining Ukraine’s war effort is waning. Political divisions are deepening in both the United States and Europe, with growing concerns over the financial and strategic costs of indefinite support for Kyiv. In the U.S., domestic political factions are increasingly questioning the wisdom of continued military aid, especially as public attention shifts to pressing internal economic and social challenges. In Europe, the economic strain of prolonged conflict—compounded by high energy prices and recessionary pressures—is fueling divisions among NATO allies, weakening the once-unified Western front.

In sum, Russia has not only withstood the combined pressure of military confrontation and economic warfare but has also emerged with strengthened global partnerships and a fortified strategic position. As Ukraine’s military capabilities dwindle and Western support falters, it becomes increasingly evident that Washington’s initial gamble—to weaken Russia through the Ukrainian battlefield—has failed.

The Path to Peace: Acknowledging the Inevitable

If the United States were genuinely committed to achieving peace, the current approach to negotiations would need to be fundamentally reconsidered. Rather than attempting to force a settlement that aligns with Washington’s strategic objectives, the talks should reflect the undeniable reality of the war’s outcome: the U.S. has failed in its efforts to weaken Russia through Ukraine, and any further prolongation of the conflict would only deepen the suffering of the Ukrainian people while exposing the diminishing effectiveness of American global influence.

A true and lasting peace cannot be built on illusions of victory or unrealistic expectations of reversing Russia’s gains. Instead, Washington must recognize that the logical and most humane course of action is to formally acknowledge the failure of its strategy and withdraw from the conflict. This means halting all military aid to Ukraine, ending efforts to sustain the war through logistical and intelligence support, and accepting that Russia’s territorial and security interests will shape the postwar order. Anything short of this would serve only to needlessly extend hostilities, further devastate Ukraine’s infrastructure, and risk greater instability in the region.

At the core of a genuine peace process is the recognition of geopolitical realities that have emerged from the war. The United States and its allies must accept that Russia’s security concerns—particularly regarding NATO expansion—are not mere pretexts but fundamental strategic imperatives that will not be ignored. For years, Moscow has warned that NATO’s eastward expansion posed a direct threat to its national security, and the war in Ukraine has demonstrated Russia’s willingness to enforce these red lines militarily. A sustainable peace agreement would therefore require concrete assurances that Ukraine will not become a NATO member and that the alliance will refrain from further encroachments along Russia’s borders.

Additionally, Washington must accept the irreversible political and territorial shifts that have taken place as a result of the conflict. Crimea, which was formally integrated into Russia following a 2014 referendum, is not realistically returning to Ukrainian control. Any insistence on reversing this reality only serves to obstruct meaningful negotiations. Similarly, the Donbas region—comprising Donetsk and Luhansk—has long sought autonomy from Kyiv, and the people of these territories must be allowed to determine their own political future without coercion from external powers. Recognizing this right to self-determination would be a crucial step toward de-escalation and long-term stability in the region.

Ultimately, the path to peace requires a decisive shift in Washington’s strategic posture. Instead of prolonging a conflict that has already exposed the limits of U.S. influence, policymakers must pivot toward diplomatic realism. By acknowledging Russia’s security interests, recognizing the new territorial status quo, and withdrawing support for further escalation, the United States can pave the way for a resolution that prioritizes stability over ideological ambitions. Failing to do so will not change the war’s outcome—it will only deepen its costs.

Conclusion: The Illusion of Diplomatic Solutions

A genuine path to peace can only begin when Washington acknowledges reality and abandons its reckless proxy war in Ukraine. Until that moment arrives, any so-called diplomatic negotiations will remain little more than a staged performance—an exercise in political theater designed not to bring about real stability but to preserve the illusion that the West still holds control over the conflict’s outcome. These negotiations serve as a smokescreen, allowing U.S. and NATO policymakers to maintain the appearance of pursuing peace while, in reality, continuing to fuel the war through military aid and strategic interference.

The fundamental flaw in Washington’s approach is its refusal to accept that it cannot dictate the terms of a settlement to Russia through Ukraine. Despite repeated failures, the U.S. remains trapped in the belief that prolonging the conflict will eventually force Moscow into submission. Yet, all available evidence points to the opposite conclusion: Russia has solidified its strategic position, while Ukraine’s capacity to fight is steadily diminishing. As Ukrainian forces suffer mounting losses, as Western military stockpiles are depleted, and as political divisions grow within NATO, the Western strategy is unraveling before the world’s eyes.

Rather than admitting this failure, Washington continues to push a narrative that peace can be achieved on its own terms—terms that demand Russia retreat, surrender its territorial gains, and accept Ukraine’s Western-aligned trajectory. This stance is not only unrealistic but actively counterproductive, as it disregards the fundamental shifts that have taken place on the battlefield and in the geopolitical landscape. The longer the U.S. clings to this illusion, the more destruction and suffering will be inflicted upon Ukraine, a nation being sacrificed for a strategic ambition that is no longer viable.

A true resolution will not emerge from diplomatic posturing but from a recognition of the actual balance of power. This requires Washington to step back, cease its military interventions, and allow negotiations to unfold in a manner that reflects the realities on the ground rather than the ideological narratives constructed by Western policymakers. Peace is not achieved by imposing unrealistic conditions on a victorious opponent—it is achieved by acknowledging facts, respecting strategic interests, and making the difficult but necessary choice to abandon failed policies. Until this shift occurs, all so-called diplomatic efforts will remain an illusion, perpetuating conflict rather than resolving it.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link